Re: [Json] On representing what ECMA wants

Paul Hoffman <> Wed, 19 June 2013 03:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A1B21E80B3 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.528
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0CImaJsUDD2r for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BAAE21E8056 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5J3lsOo007940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:47:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:47:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: es-discuss <>, "" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [Json] On representing what ECMA wants
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:47:57 -0000

On Jun 18, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Mark Miller <> wrote:

> Hi Paul, I'm missing all the context, but from this out of context fragment, your response seems inappropriate. A statement like Doug's "I think this is the standard that ECMA wants to publish" sounds to me like speculation on how TC39 will react to some proposed standard.

If that's truly the case, such speculation from a random person is fine. Clearly, Douglas is not a random person: he is both the author of RFC 4627 and a TC39 member. If he meant to make that statement as neither, he needs to have said so.

> Whether coming from someone on TC39 or not, I do not see that any assertion of authority is involved. Here on es-discuss, both members and non-members of TC39 speculate and argue all the time on what kinds of things TC39 might approve of. Member of TC39 participate in these discussions, not to speak for TC39 as a whole, but to speak a) for themselves as participants in TC39, and b) as someone who is more informed than most, but still fallible, speculating about howTC39 might react to something. Perhaps this line gets blurry sometimes, but a statement like "I think this is the standard that ECMA wants to publish" seems to me clearly on the non-blurry side of that line.

Different SDOs have different customs, and in the IETF, custom says that you make clear when you are speculating and when you are representing. Douglas' earlier statement about ECMA was misinterpreted by WG members, so it felt worthwhile for the chairs to make clear who is and is not representing whom to the IETF.

--Paul Hoffman